| Submit your comments on this article |
| Poop list changes... |
| 2005-07-26 |
At Robin's suggestion, I've added another category to the Poop List functions. Editors can now:
|
| Posted by:Fred |
| #72 Sorry, muck4doo. Aris was too abusive. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-26 23:57 |
| #71 breeng bak aris! ifn nothin else ima alwayz enchoyed seein him an me favrite jennie goin at it. :) |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-07-26 23:54 |
| #70 as do I |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 23:51 |
| #69 I rest my case. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-26 23:49 |
| #68 how's that "open books" UN audit going? Sevan still in country? Nooooo . Where's Kofi's kid? Find the account numbrs yet? The food ripped off stays ripped off. The children starved, stay starved. Only Mike S returns untarnished....not. A REAL MEA CULPA would cause a lot (at least of mine) of accusations of toadying to nefarious purposes and fealty to the the UN/NGO's above American security/patriotism, but I won't be holding my breath or fire, MS |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 23:48 |
| #67 take comfort where you can, OFF/UN apologist |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 23:43 |
| #66 Re #64 (Paul Maloney): Aris was no more abusive than people were to him. Thanks, Paul, for confirming the obvious. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-26 23:38 |
| #65 And some folks, circling the bowl of a tormented private event horizon, seek it out, secretly revel in it, and beg for the kill shot. The Rantburg Red-Headed Stepchild Syndrome. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-26 23:27 |
| #64 Aris was no more abusive than people were to him. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-07-26 23:26 |
| #63 When one is the straw man, any criticism would seem personal, but it isn't. I think we argue what you present on its merits. We don't know diddly squat about you as a person, except that you seem to be IQ challenged either that or incredibly stubborn. And for the record, Aris was quite abusive and not just to me. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-07-26 23:24 |
| #62 Rantburg is a forum where a large portion of the comments are nothing but personal abuse. The moderators tolerate it to an extraordinary extent. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-26 23:06 |
| #61 personal abuse = identifying sympathizers with |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 22:50 |
| #60 "Personal abuse toward other individuals is tolerated on Rantburg all the time." NMM / AgentPoseur is a case in point. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-26 22:31 |
| #59 Re #5 (rkb): PT/GE: you came to Rantburg and in less than 6 hours posted over 30 comments in a single thread, most of which were personal attacks on commenters here and on the United States. and Re #6 (Steve White): Yes, we will ban regulars if sufficiently abusive/foul. Ask Aris for details -- oh right, you can't, we banned him :-) Grearong Elmurong9235 and Aris Katsaris were generally not abusive toward other individuals. It's simply that their opinions are not tolerated here. Personal abuse toward other individuals is tolerated on Rantburg all the time. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-26 22:16 |
| #58 My days are numbered! |
| Posted by: Bigjim-ky 2005-07-26 22:02 |
| #57 There are several folks whose posts I admire, from time to time, and find that folks here rip them a new ...ummm... well, you know! That's one of the things that makes RB so interesting. Seek first to understand, then be understood. I don't always practice it (ask my wife!) but it is a good practice for reaching agreement! Goodnight! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-26 21:15 |
| #56 Well I have to go now and leave you guys to exchange your favourite fantasies. I might be back tomorrow or the next day. Well, I for one shall fantasize about your return. Not. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-26 19:05 |
| #55 .com, Man, you can WRITE! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-26 19:04 |
| #54 When I saw "it's" then few posts last night I said to myself this was a troll looking to start a flame fest and didn't comment. If you don't feed them, they will go away. Yes PD typical TRANZI ignorance is quite apperent. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-26 17:34 |
| #53 TTTTTT TTTTTT TTTTT TTTTT TTTTT TTTTT Glum camera backs it up 27. Still 13 away from my hero Major Bong. LOL! |
| Posted by: half 2005-07-26 17:13 |
| #52 I stand by every word I posted on the original thread. It is of no value because it is solely interested in being special, not in discussion or factual exchange, but as celebrity / authority. That every word it posted was factually incorrect, a mish-mash derivative of factually incorrect tripe, or pompous invective should have been sufficient for permanent exile. It came not to contribute, but to parade itself, to show off its Emperor's New Duds, to establish itself as an authority, lol. Remarkably, and tellingly, it thought it could accomplish this instantly, wiggle out a large chunk of the Town Square for itself to erect a statue worthy of a Tranzi Socialist Champion - with it being the champion in this fantasy, and all this a mere morning's work of dumping proven fool's gold scooped up from the Moonbat sites. My, how original. It is desperate for recognition and acclaim. It seems prepared to accept any sort of attention and any quality of acclaim -- and, as all who are parents will instantly recognize, this lowers its operating age to single digits. Been there, seen that, and bought the cleaning products. It is an object of irrelevant dimension and variable substance, but the smell is unmistakable and all too familiar. This new thread's title, happily, accurately identifies the content it came to deposit, methinks. *flush* is sooo apropos. Or, to turn this into something of actual value, require it to provide a valid credit card and charge it by the word. I can't wait for it to start posting articles. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-26 17:04 |
| #51 I also want to emphasize the last quoted paragraph of the Guardian article. The UNICEF study so often quoted by people such as PT is bogus. It was written by those working in Saddam's Ministry of Health. If they went against Saddam's wishes, what do you think would have been the state of their and their families' health? |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-26 16:47 |
| #50 "discovered" instead of "facilitated", huh, Ed? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 16:46 |
| #49 good catch, Ed. FAIR got it wrong back in 98-99. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 16:41 |
| #48 Robin, I know it is PT's link, but: In fact, oil-for-food money is administered by the U.N., and disbursed directly from a U.S. bank account to foreign suppliers, so direct misappropriation of funds is impossible In fact, the $64 billion in Oil for Food funds were handled by Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas. If it were handled by a US bank or even a US branch of a foreign bank, the scam would have been discovered much earlier and the recipients traced. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-26 16:38 |
| #47 mucky - those are fed directly to PD's hard drive |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 16:30 |
| #46 We may choose not to forward truly inappropriate articles -- I've dumped neonazi and racist stuff, as well as totally rabid leftwing agitation to violence for instance. oh. no pron to. ima notis pron ushualy donet go thru. |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-07-26 16:22 |
| #45 PT, a thread is generally tied to an article submission. On Rantburg's main page, click on Post Your Own Article at the top of the page. You will be presented with a form to fill out. Be prepared to give the article's title, an excerpt from the article and a URL for the original. You may intersperse comments of your own. type the comment, select it and then use the hilite tab to distinguish it from the original article contents. When you submit your entry, it goes into a holding queue where one of the moderators will check it for completeness and appropriate categories, then forward it to the public site. We may choose not to forward truly inappropriate articles -- I've dumped neonazi and racist stuff, as well as totally rabid leftwing agitation to violence for instance. Neither is acceptable here. We may also dump multiples of the same story. Otherwise, most things go through. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 16:17 |
| #44 ... and the pack of abusing dogs will always be here. So bring your lunch next time. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-07-26 16:16 |
| #43 You were the one who started the abuse, i.e. What a load of crap and what despicable ugly turds you really are. Ring a bell? Don't try to replay it like yer some noble guy seeking the high road when all you do is spit out the worst of the rewarmed DU talking point crap. but bearing in mind I was pursued by a pack of abusing dogs, that's hardly surprising. What a self-important twit. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-26 16:13 |
| #42 Actually, Saddam Hussein claimed that 1.7 million children died. If PT can't believe Saddam, who can he believe? How about someone in Saddam's inner circle or The Guardian? How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals Ali, outraged that Saddam's torturers may have crippled his daughter for life, spoke openly about how the regime's propaganda has faked mass baby funerals - 'evidence' of the 7,000 children under five the regime claims are being killed each month by sanctions. Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages - 'three days', 'four days', written usefully for the English-speaking media - are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of official mourners. There is only one problem. Because there are not enough dead babies around, the regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, in the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda. The taxi drivers do what they are told - as everybody does in Saddam's Iraq - to their evident disgust. Before Ali defected to the north, one friend of his, a taxi driver, explained how it worked: 'I went to Najaf [a town 100 miles south of Baghdad] a couple of days ago. I brought back two bodies of children for one of the mass funerals. The smell was very strong.' Ali continued: 'The taxi driver didn't know how long they'd been in freezers, perhaps six or seven months. The drivers would collect them from the regions and would be informed of when a mass funeral was arranged so they would be ready. Certainly, they would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for the mass processions.' A second, Western source, went to visit visited a Baghdad hospital and, when the official Iraqi minder was absent, was taken to the mortuary. There, a doctor showed the source a number of dead babies, lying stacked in the mortuary, waiting for the next official procession. ... In 1999 Unicef, in co-operation with the Iraqi government, made a retrospective projection of 500,000 excess child deaths in the 1990s. The projection is open to question. It was based on data from within a regime that tortures children with impunity. All but one of the researchers used by Unicef were employees of the Ministry of Health, according to the Lancet. Be sure to read the first few paragraphs of how Saddam's dictatorship treated this man's little girl. It's in the finest of your hero, Stalin's tradition. Omlettes and eggs, old chap. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-26 16:09 |
| #41 One question before I go. How do you start new threads? I will look tomorrow for the answer. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 16:08 |
| #40 PT, from the FAIR article you linked to: The summer of 2001 saw a revival of long-discredited claims that sanctions are not to blame for Iraq's suffering, but that Saddam Hussein bears sole responsibility--an argument put forward in a State Department report (8/99) issued shortly after the UNICEF report on the deaths of children. Seizing on the fact that infant mortality had decreased in northern Iraq, which is under U.N. administration, while more than doubling in the rest of the country, where the government of Iraq is in charge, the State Department accused Baghdad of wide-scale misappropriation of funds from Iraqi oil sales earmarked for humanitarian purposes. Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who spent nine months as a private citizen in northern Iraq, has pushed this argument in at least eight op-eds in papers ranging from the Wall Street Journal (8/9/01) to the Los Angeles Times (8/12/01). These op-eds follow the same basic theme: Since conditions in the north of Iraq are much better than the rest of the country, Saddam must be taking oil-for-food money and using it to buy weapons; Iraqis don't want sanctions lifted, they want Saddam out; the U.S. should support the overthrow of Saddam. In fact, oil-for-food money is administered by the U.N., and disbursed directly from a U.S. bank account to foreign suppliers, so direct misappropriation of funds is impossible However, we now know that in fact MASSIVE misallocation of oil for food monies occurred. Billions of dollars, in fact. And we know that at least a dozen lavish palaces were built by Saddam during that period, as well. So it might just be that with new information the old assumptions about responsibility bear rethinking. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 16:07 |
| #39 Hey If you don't like the editors' rules, STFU and go someplace else. Kos is looking for readers.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-07-26 16:07 |
| #38 gud nite pt! donet let em bed buggers byte. :) |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-07-26 16:06 |
| #37 Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Steven Covey - (paraphrase) First seek to understand, then be understood. Name calling and shouting help with neither. But I really want to hear more about how the U.S. Government controls the New York Times! Some of the other issues could be shades of gray/grey, if quietly discussed long enough, but not that one! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-26 16:05 |
| #36 Well I have to go now and leave you guys to exchange your favourite fantasies. I might be back tomorrow or the next day. I must say I often look at your forum to pick up on news items but always refer to the original to learn the real story, some of your interpretations of facts I find amusing. Good night my new found friends. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 16:05 |
| #35 Steve W - don't troll or flame. Note to regulars -- don't troll or flame. That goes for all of us, including me. Correct... Any personal remarks at one another are too inside baseball... If we want to encourage more participation, then we ought to direct our venom outward... It so much more fun to talk trash about Kimmy and Binny... And how to deal with them... Psssst - Kimmy.... I know a great place to get "special" shoes... Make a man feel six feet tall... {wink} Only you have to go to Lakewood California to get them... {snicker} |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-26 15:56 |
| #34 Lesley Stahl is simply the CBS 60 Minutes correspondent. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/60minutes/main13546.shtml |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:53 |
| #33 He didn't read it all. Flush him. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-26 15:52 |
| #32 Neutron-it's simply in denial stuff. For example is says "The sanctions, first imposed in 1990 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, are administered by the U.N., not the U.S." That's true of course but what it fails to mention is that the USA continually threatened to veto any attempt to relinquish the sanctions. The 500,000 was the estimation of UNESCO, they had no reason to lie and as you see, Albright didn't even try to. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:50 |
| #31 Take care PakiBashing is all the rage again. IMA Gone see ya in the ST! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-26 15:49 |
| #30 Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-26 15:47 |
| #29 Flush 'em |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 15:47 |
| #28 See #18, paragraph 3. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:43 |
| #27 Read this, PT: http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml Don't come back until you read it all. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-26 15:43 |
| #26 I'm amazed at how many people think that others have a duty to provide them with a forum. If PT is so enlightened he should set up his own forum. |
| Posted by: Formerly Dan 2005-07-26 15:42 |
| #25 1) I did. 2) Last time I was criticised for making 30 comments in a short time, but bearing in mind I was pursued by a pack of abusing dogs, that's hardly surprising. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:42 |
| #24 Okay, let's ease into this. 1) give links for your citations 2) let's find the right thread for this issue. I'm fine if you want to take it back to the 130+ comment thread again, providing it's a real discussion with links and a response to critics. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 15:39 |
| #23 Hello? |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:39 |
| #22 Well Albright didn't deny it , how come you are? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:31 |
| #21 You thought GE/PT could be useful when he's spewing the old "128,000 Iraqi's dead / 500,000 Iraqi children dead" nonsense? I don't think so. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-26 15:28 |
| #20 Well what do you want to discuss RKB? |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:28 |
| #19 I'm actually disappointed here. I was hoping (a slender hope, but honestly held) that PT would rise to the occasion and play the very useful and important role of loyal opposition. RB should never turn into an echo chamber. I don't see much evidence that he intends to contribute here, tho. Shame, really .... |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 15:24 |
| #18 PT9564, it's really simple: 1) if you cite/claim/note factual information, provide a link or reference. Easy to do. 2) don't troll or flame. Note to regulars -- don't troll or flame. That goes for all of us, including me. 3) it's okay to have a different opinion, but understand that if your opinion on handling the WoT is substantially different than that of the regulars here, you'll catch some heat. You can always use oven mitts on your keyboard. If that bothers you, go elsewhere. Steve (AoS, co-moderator) |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-26 15:21 |
| #17 You really are determined to be a pain in the ass, aren't you PT? |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 15:21 |
| #16 Here we are Harold http://www.iprivacytools.com/ it costs $19.95 though, you had better start saving your pennies. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 15:16 |
| #15 Yur right BigEd... but this one is so funny in a Paki/Brit way. Ima stop. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-26 15:09 |
| #14 Most of what I wrote was general knowledge outside of your forum "General knowledge" = "what my friends all think" -- unless you can both cite substantial references AND respond to critiques of those references. That's the primary thing your comments were missing. Add those and a certain amount of ... asperity ... with regard to other commenters is quite acceptable. But without those elements, it's just trolling and bandwidth hogging. And - citations/links, please. Don't copy huge chunks of text from elsewhere. Hyperlinks work fine and allow readers to place excerpts into their larger context. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 14:53 |
| #13 We will post free like the regulars or diiiiiiiiiiiiiie. Trolls with variable IPs. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-07-26 14:32 |
| #12 "...if it's necessary for my voice to be heard I will." It isn't neccessary... trust us. Unless you have more information on Rummy in a speedo! That might be neccessary.... |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2005-07-26 14:27 |
| #11 great - and Judge Ginsburg in pasties? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-26 14:27 |
| #10 Shipman - Trollz are best ignored. Don't respond directly... let Fred, rkb, and the other mods "handle" viral infestations... I'm more curious about "Rummy in the Speedo"? Aren't you? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-26 14:23 |
| #9 Incidental I can change my IP address if required, it's a pain in the ass, but if it's necessary for my voice to be heard I will. Heavens! What that music in the background? Is it? Yes! It is the Internationale! Haven't seen anything like this since Green Acres. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-26 14:19 |
| #8 But that's not true and you know it. Most of what I wrote was general knowledge outside of your forum and practically all the personal abuse came from your flock, I only retaliated occasionally. If you want to turn this forum into a refuge for rabid right wingers, fair enough, but eventually you are all going to have to face the real world. Incidental I can change my IP address if required, it's a pain in the ass, but if it's necessary for my voice to be heard I will. |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 14:07 |
| #7 Well I guess there was a road test with the Jihad Unspun article posted by Mike Silwester... There was troll all over that one, and rkb had to end it... Of course Jihad Unspun has to be put in a category with Weekly World News I usually don't respond personally to JU except to ridicule... After all this week WWN features Rummy in a Speedo! That's about the same way I view JU's nonsense... For Entertainment Value Only-Jihad Unspun Can't top This! - But they try |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-26 13:58 |
| #6 PT 9654 -- 1) It's our blog. 2) Trolling is not appropriate anywhere. Kos bans trolls, so it's hard to complain about banning trolls. 3) Trolls waste bandwidth, time and energy. With 100+ posts and 600+ comments a day, Fred & the co-editors don't have the time to screw around with trolls. 4) Yes, we will ban regulars if sufficiently abusive/foul. Ask Aris for details -- oh right, you can't, we banned him :-) |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-26 13:27 |
| #5 Pholuque Threreth9564 is the 3rd nym used today by Grearong Elmurong9235. PT/GE: you came to Rantburg and in less than 6 hours posted over 30 comments in a single thread, most of which were personal attacks on commenters here and on the United States. With one exception, you didn't even bother to link to evidence for your assertions, nor did you bother to respond to counterarguments except with abuse. You were banned in your first nym. I deleted the single comment under the 2nd nym. Engage in spirited debate backed by facts, if you will. That's welcome here. But you are scarcely the person to complain about abusive comments. And, keep in mind Fred's 4th bullet point above. Your Oxford, UK isp isn't aol. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-26 13:25 |
| #4 It's time to take a stand. I stand for impersonal abuse. Sometimes I'm even bent over the arm of a chair... Er... nevermind |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-07-26 13:13 |
| #3 Uhh... cause it's his blog? |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-07-26 12:54 |
| #2 Why the need for so much censorship when anyone with a contrary view gets spammed to death? Why do you allow bad language and personal abuse from the regulars? |
| Posted by: Pholuque Threreth9564 2005-07-26 12:40 |
| #1 I still dropping the odd transposed verb/noun would be fun, but hey! Who's to know? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-26 12:14 |